McAfee Secure

Exam Code: JN0-364

Exam Name: Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP)

Certification Provider: Juniper

Questions & Answers

Juniper JN0-364 Questions & Answers

Study with Up-To-Date REAL Exam Questions and Answers from the ACTUAL Test

Questions & Answers

69 Questions & Answers with Testing Engine

"Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) Exam", also known as JN0-364 exam, is a Juniper certification exam.

Pass your tests with the always up-to-date JN0-364 Exam Engine. Your JN0-364 training materials keep you at the head of the pack!

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Was: $137.49
Now: $124.99

Juniper JN0-364 Practice Test 20

Question 190

A fictional service-provider team at Winterfield Utilities is reviewing an intercity fiber refresh. The finding is: Two exit links reach the same prefix, but the AS prefers the wrong outbound egress because import policy sets local preference improperly. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Exercise VRRP failover and confirm virtual gateway reachability under device and link failure.
  2. Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes.
  3. Exercise multihop peering tests with source addresses and routed hop counts before production turn-up.
  4. Verify best paths on multiple iBGP speakers after local-preference policy revisions.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Verify best paths on multiple iBGP speakers after local-preference policy revisions. This monitors the behavior that failed at Winterfield Utilities; the most useful acceptance signal is that internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Exercise VRRP failover and confirm virtual gateway reachability under device and link failure. That ongoing check is for VRRP virtual gateway failover; it would not reliably detect recurrence of BGP local preference. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.

B:

Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes. The monitored boundary differs from BGP local preference, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.

C:

The control protects EBGP multihop reachability. It does not establish the ongoing BGP local preference behavior required in this network. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.

Question 191

The operations group at fictional Clearwater Transit, working on a metro aggregation ring, finds: A tenant requests private transport across the internet, but the design assumes ordinary GRE encapsulation encrypts application traffic. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Review tunnel transport security requirements and verify encryption rather than accepting GRE setup as proof of privacy.
  2. Test tunnel path MTU and fragmentation behavior with realistic payload sizes after transport changes.
  3. Guard tunnel outer endpoint routes against redistribution into the overlay routing table.
  4. Compare advertised TLVs and learned route counts before and after IS-IS feature upgrades.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Review tunnel transport security requirements and verify encryption rather than accepting GRE setup as proof of privacy. This monitors the behavior that failed at Clearwater Transit; the most useful acceptance signal is that an underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Test tunnel path MTU and fragmentation behavior with realistic payload sizes after transport changes. That ongoing check is for GRE tunnel path MTU; it would not reliably detect recurrence of GRE confidentiality limitation. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

C:

The control protects GRE recursive route avoidance. It does not establish the ongoing GRE confidentiality limitation behavior required in this network. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

D:

This is a useful guard against IS-IS TLV reachability, but it is not scoped to the observed GRE confidentiality limitation failure. An appropriate test would show that an underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.

Question 192

At fictional Meridian Cloud, during a backbone recovery drill, engineers report: A network migration changes the native VLAN on one end of an 802.1Q trunk but not on the other, causing intermittent untagged host reachability. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent.
  2. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.
  3. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.
  4. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent. Those conditions do not account for the specific native untagged VLAN drift problem reported by Meridian Cloud.

B:

Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged. That describes provider bridging MTU overhead, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by native untagged VLAN drift; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity. Those conditions do not account for the specific native untagged VLAN drift problem reported by Meridian Cloud.

Question 193

During a virtual-router integration at fictional Harborfield Datacenter, the team observes: Security auditors observe readable payloads captured on a GRE underlay because no separate encryption protects the packets. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.
  2. An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.
  3. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.
  4. Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests penultimate hop popping; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed GRE confidentiality limitation condition. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

C:

This measurement tests GRE endpoint underlay routing; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed GRE confidentiality limitation condition. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

D:

Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters. That establishes GRE tunnel path MTU rather than a repaired GRE confidentiality limitation path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: an underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.

Question 194

A fictional service-provider team at Everfield Rail is reviewing a virtual-router integration. The finding is: A new static route points to a peer address learned only through the same failed path, leaving the destination absent from the forwarding table. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.
  2. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.
  3. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.
  4. Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to correct the static route's reachable next hop and preference, then verify that its active route resolves to an operational forwarding interface.

Incorrect Answers

B:

LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS. That describes BGP local preference, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by static route next-hop resolution; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

Although generated route qualified next hop needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.

D:

Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops. That describes equal-cost forwarding flow hashing, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by static route next-hop resolution; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 195

The operations group at fictional Jasper Data Works, working on an intercity fiber refresh, finds: A connected service prefix exists locally but never appears in IS-IS even though all adjacencies are healthy. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.
  2. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.
  3. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.
  4. RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements.

Incorrect Answers

B:

IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch. Those conditions do not account for the specific IS-IS route redistribution policy problem reported by Jasper Data Works.

C:

IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity. That describes IS-IS LSP database synchronization, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by IS-IS route redistribution policy; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

Although RSVP PATH and RESV signaling needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

Question 196

At fictional Cypress Fiber, during a network change window, engineers report: After a traffic surge, a new RSVP LSP takes an unexpected detour because the candidate link lacks unreserved bandwidth. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Compare intended LDP interface coverage against active discovery neighbors after link additions.
  2. Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change.
  3. Review per-link reserved and unreserved bandwidth before creating or resizing TE tunnels.
  4. Validate node-SID uniqueness, advertised SRGB ranges and effective label forwarding after upgrades.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Review per-link reserved and unreserved bandwidth before creating or resizing TE tunnels. This monitors the behavior that failed at Cypress Fiber; the most useful acceptance signal is that the intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects LDP neighbor discovery. It does not establish the ongoing RSVP path bandwidth admission behavior required in this network. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

B:

Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change. That ongoing check is for equal-cost forwarding flow hashing; it would not reliably detect recurrence of RSVP path bandwidth admission. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

D:

Validate node-SID uniqueness, advertised SRGB ranges and effective label forwarding after upgrades. The monitored boundary differs from RSVP path bandwidth admission, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

Question 197

During a dual-stack transit pilot at fictional Hawthorne Metro, the team observes: A backbone LAN has too many full mesh adjacencies and the team mistakenly expects point-to-point behavior on a broadcast segment. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.
  2. Review interface network type and DR priorities, then plan election behavior with the existing DR and BDR state in mind.
  3. Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection.
  4. Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Review interface network type and DR priorities, then plan election behavior with the existing DR and BDR state in mind. This treats the fault shown by Hawthorne Metro: OSPF broadcast networks elect a DR and BDR; raising priority does not automatically preempt an already elected DR. Confirm success when the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area. That could help in a case involving OSPF area LSA propagation. This failure instead depends on OSPF designated router election; OSPF broadcast networks elect a DR and BDR; raising priority does not automatically preempt an already elected DR.

C:

Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection. Its normal acceptance signal would be A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers. Here the deciding check is different: the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

D:

Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it. That could help in a case involving OSPF external route export. This failure instead depends on OSPF designated router election; OSPF broadcast networks elect a DR and BDR; raising priority does not automatically preempt an already elected DR.

Question 198

A fictional service-provider team at Foxglove Broadband is reviewing a provider-edge service migration. The finding is: Two trunk endpoints disagree on where untagged control traffic belongs, placing frames in the wrong customer VLAN. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Fix internal next-hop reachability or use appropriate next-hop handling on the egress boundary, then confirm usable BGP forwarding.
  2. Align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic.
  3. Inspect bridge MAC learning, move events, and the Layer 2 topology; remove unintended loop or incorrect forwarding path.
  4. Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic. This treats the fault shown by Foxglove Broadband: A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain. Confirm success when untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Fix internal next-hop reachability or use appropriate next-hop handling on the egress boundary, then confirm usable BGP forwarding. This addresses BGP next-hop reachability, but the reported symptoms arise from native untagged VLAN drift. For this case, verify instead that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

C:

Inspect bridge MAC learning, move events, and the Layer 2 topology; remove unintended loop or incorrect forwarding path. That could help in a case involving MAC address learning and moves. This failure instead depends on native untagged VLAN drift; A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

D:

The proposal changes integrated routing and bridging; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave native untagged VLAN drift unresolved even if its own test passed. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

Question 199

The operations group at fictional Tidewater Hosting, working on a provider-edge service migration, finds: The router immediately before an LSP egress retains an unnecessary transport label because implicit-null behavior is not understood. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Compare intended LDP interface coverage against active discovery neighbors after link additions.
  2. Confirm implicit-null advertisements and expected transport-label popping during LSP validation.
  3. Validate node-SID uniqueness, advertised SRGB ranges and effective label forwarding after upgrades.
  4. Include reserved-prefix and martian-route validation in route import audits and configuration-change tests.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Confirm implicit-null advertisements and expected transport-label popping during LSP validation. This monitors the behavior that failed at Tidewater Hosting; the most useful acceptance signal is that the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Compare intended LDP interface coverage against active discovery neighbors after link additions. The monitored boundary differs from penultimate hop popping, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Penultimate-hop popping can remove an outer transport label before the egress, reducing egress label processing.

C:

Validate node-SID uniqueness, advertised SRGB ranges and effective label forwarding after upgrades. That ongoing check is for segment routing prefix SID; it would not reliably detect recurrence of penultimate hop popping. Penultimate-hop popping can remove an outer transport label before the egress, reducing egress label processing.

D:

The control protects martian source address rejection. It does not establish the ongoing penultimate hop popping behavior required in this network. Penultimate-hop popping can remove an outer transport label before the egress, reducing egress label processing.

Question 200

At fictional Fabletree Media, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: LDP sessions never form on a core interface even though the IGP route to the peer loopback is present. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.
  2. The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.
  3. The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.
  4. The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets. That establishes GRES preserves forwarding not protocols rather than a repaired LDP neighbor discovery path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

B:

The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings. That establishes LDP transport address reachability rather than a repaired LDP neighbor discovery path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

C:

The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources. That establishes RSVP path bandwidth admission rather than a repaired LDP neighbor discovery path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) (JN0-364) Practice Tests